بسم الله الرØمن الرØيم
السلام عليكم
This is the summary of
an empirical research on CALL in language skills. Among the five skills in
language learning, we have chosen the writing skill. Below is the original
research paper as well as the summary of the research paper:
The objective of this study is to find out whether computer
software would help students with special needs in improving their skill in
writing.
Many
students with special needs face difficulties in writing, specifically in
spelling, written expression, punctuation, capitalization, and organization. There
were many researches have been conducted regarding the writing performance of
students with special needs. MacArthur, Graham, Haynes, and DeLaPaz (1996)
found that students with special needs were two to four
times more likely to have spelling errors than their general
education peers. Mayes, Calhoun, and Crowell (2000) found that 65% of 119 students referred to a
clinic for suspected learning disabilities had a written expression disability,
twice the percentage of students who had a disability in
reading, math, or spelling. In addition, Brooks, Vaughan, and Veminger (1999)
found that for 15 of 17 students with learning disabilities
referred for writing intervention, their spelling, composition, and
word recognition scores were significantly below their verbal intelligence
quotient scores. DeLaPaz (1999) noted that students with learning
disabilities were more likely to demonstrate errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and word usage and that their writings were
more likely to be shorter and illegible.
Students with special needs are usually put in general
education classrooms that would help them with the development of literacy
skills, including writing. Technology such as computer software might be
beneficial for these students in improving their writing. In this study, the
computer software being used are personal computer spell checkers, talking word
processors, and word prediction software.
The study dealt
with a specific question: "What are the effects on writing when
a talking word processor with spell checker software is
used independently of and in conjunction with word prediction software as
accommodations for students with special needs in daily writing exercises?"
The study was carried out in an elementary school in a diverse,
urban school district in Ohio. The participants for this study were seven fifth
grade students with mild disabilities who were identified through the
evaluations and qualified for special education and related services. These students
received services in resource and inclusion classrooms. They were registered in
the same fifth grade general education classroom and resource room. Information on students'
experience with computers and their performance on producing a
computer-generated version of a handwritten essay that was provided to
the students were collected from their general education teacher. Students' writing performance
was evaluated using a rubric designed by their school district to evaluate
several aspects of written expression.
The study was
done in the form of case study approach with a modified multiple baselines.
The data were presented in table form in order to make the reading easier. The study
contained three phases: baseline, intervention using a talking word
processor, and intervention using word prediction software in
conjunction with a talking word processor. The writing samples of
the students were obtained during the participating district's mandated
daily writing assignment. This study involved collecting
qualitative data through field notes and interviews, conducted by the first
author, to get the participants' views on the use of
software accommodations.
There are three phases involved in this study.
In the baseline phase, three handwritten writing samples from
each participant were collected over a one-week period. The instructions in
this phase that was provided in the general education classroom and
resource room are mainly focusing on how to construct and edit
handwritten products.
The second and third phases (the intervention
phases) were done in three weeks for each of them, with a maximum of nine
writing samples being collected from every participant in each phase. In
Phase Two, students used Write:Outloud Version 3 (1993-1998), a
talking word processor with spell checker function computer software program. The
direct instruction on how to use the software was given in the resource
room. This phase requires the students to work through a mock assignment with
the teacher. At the end of the instruction, students were
given 10 minutes to try out the software. On the next day, students received
a brief reminder of how to use the software. Students
then used the software for their daily journal writings in
both the general education classroom and the resource room. They were
given choices whether to do a new written sample each day or to edit
their product from the day before. It was not allowed for the
students to take more than two days on a single sample. This is just to make
sure that at least two or three writing samples can be
collected from each student per week.
After three weeks of using only
Write:Outloud, the word prediction program Co:Writer 4000 Version 4.1
(1992-2003) was added to the intervention for Phase Three. In this
phase, Write:Outloud was used in-tandem with Co: Writer. Direct
instruction on using the software was received in the resource room.The
students used both software programs in their daily journal writing for the three
weeks in Phase Three. During Phases Two and Three, students wore headphones to hear the audio feedback.
Instruments for data gathering
The instrument
being used during data gathering were the Write:Outloud Version 3 (1993-1998), the
word prediction program Co:Writer 4000 Version 4.1 (1992-2003), as well as the handwritten writing samples
from each participant for baseline, second and third phase.
Instruments for data analysis
The data were
analyzed by calculating the mean number of words, mean number of misspellings,
mean accuracy percentage, and mean total rubric score per writing sample
and across each participants total writing samples in each phase, which
were presented in tables. Number of words refers to the sum of words and
abbreviations in the sample. Number of misspelling refers to the sum of words
that were spelled incorrectly in the sample while the accuracy percentage
refers to the sum of correctly spelled words in the sample. The total rubric
score refers to the mean score obtained on the sample based on the district
writing rubric which was scored by the student’s homeroom teacher, the student’s
special education teacher, and the elementary literacy coach.
Other than
that, the field notes and interviews, conducted by the first author
in order to obtain participants' views on the use of
software accommodations were used.
The performance of the students in writing was observed in group
and individually in terms of the number of words, number of misspellings,
accuracy of words and total rubric score.
As a whole, the students
improved during the second and third phase.
Number of words. The group
mean for the number of words during baseline increased from
47.06 words to 50.00 words with Write:Outloud, and to 52.32
words with Co: Writer. Five students progressed in the number of
words written from baseline to Co:Writer. Two students (David
and Jesse) did slightly better with Write:Outloud than with Co:Writer.
However, the number of words decreased from baseline for Kari
and Bethany,no matter what software was used.
Number of misspellings. The group
mean for misspellings during baseline decreased from 6.09 to 2.44 with Write:Outloud.
The group mean decreased again to 2.10 with the use of Co:Writer.
For all seven students, the number of misspellings
decreased from baseline compared to Write:Outloud and from baseline
compared to Co:Writer. The number of misspellings for three of
the students (David, Kari, and Bethany) decreased when using Co:Writer
as compared to Writer:Outloud, while the rest of the students had
less misspellings with Write:Outloud than with Co: Writer.
Accuracy of words. The accuracy
percentage for the whole group during baseline increased from 87.07%, to
95.11% with Write:Outloud, and 95.98% with Co:Writer. Every
student increased in accuracy from baseline to Write:Outloud and from
baseline to Co:Writer. Five students increased in the correctness
of the words from Writer:Outloud to Co:Writer, while the other two students (Pat
and Jesse) to some extent decreased between these phases.
Writing rubric scores. The mean
total group score on the writing rubric during baseline was 9.38 out of 20
points. It increased to 9.90 with Write:Outloud, and 11.25 with Co:Writer.
Four students (Aaron, Pat, Kari, and Bethany) increased in total
rubric score between baseline and Write:Outloud, but three (David, Daniel, and
Jesse) decreased. Six students increased their mean rubric scores
between baseline and Co:Writer, but one student's score (Daniel)
decreased. Six students also increased their scores between Write:Outloud
and Co:Writer, but one students score (Bethany) to some extent decreased.
(ii)
Individual performance
David improved in all areas from baseline to Co:Writer.
His total rubric score increased a little from baseline and Co:Writer. Even
though David’s total rubric score between baseline and Write:Outloud decreased,
he had improved in the number of words, number of misspellings,
and accuracy percentage during this phase. David also made improvements between
baseline and Co:Writer. In general, the combination of Co:Writer with Write:Outloud
was helpful for him.
Daniel improved in all four areas except in
total rubric score. From baseline to Write: Outloud, his number of
words increased from 33 to 42 and to 53 with Co:Writer.
Number of misspellings decreased from baseline to Write:Outloud.
However, between Write:Outloud and
Co:Writer his number of misspelling increased a bit. Yet, it was still fewer than during baseline. Even
though Daniel showed progression in accuracy percentage from baseline to Write:Outloud
and baseline to Co:Writer, his total rubric score did not improve in
both phases. He decreased by almost one point from baseline to Co:Writer.
Because of this, the best software for him was quite uncertain.
Jesse performed better in all four areas when using Write:
Outloud and Co:Writer compared to the baseline. His highest total writing rubric
score was obtained during the Co:Writer phase. During the Write:Outloud
Phase, he greatly improved in three areas. His misspellings were reduced, and his number of words
and accuracy percentage increased. Overall, Jesse benefited most with the Write:Outloud.
Pat improved in all four areas. He obtained the
highest score in the group in accuracy percentage from baseline to Co:Writer
with increasing score of 72.77% to 90.65%. His number of misspellings
from baseline to Co:Writer was greatly decreased from 10.40 to 4.86. The
number of words Pat produced during baseline increased with Write:Outloud,
and increased more with Co:Writer. His total rubric score increased by 3.1
points between baseline and Co: Writer. Between Write:Outloud and Co: Writer,
it looks like Co:Writer was the most effective software for Pat.
Kari showed no increase in number of words
in both phases. However, she decreased her number of misspellings,
and increased her percentage accuracy and total rubric score from baseline to Co:
Writer. The number of misspellings was decreased by two in each phase
and her accuracy percentage had also increased from baseline to Write:Outloud,
and further improved when using Co:Writer. Kari improved greatly in the total
rubric score, with 7.97 during baseline to 8.91 during Write:Outloud
phase, and to 10.12 during Co:Writer phase. This showed
that Co:Writer was the most useful for Kari.
Bethany improved in the reduction of the number
misspellings, increase in accuracy percentage and total rubric score. Her
scores in number of words decreased during both phases. It took her
longer to finish her writing assignments when using
the computer. This has caused her to write fewer words in her
writing. Bethany’s number of words and total rubric score increased when using
Write:Outloud. While using Co:Writer, her number of misspelled words decreased
and her accuracy percentage increased. Thus, it is quite hard to know which software was
most suitable for Bethany.
The study might be useful in helping students with special needs in
their performance in writing. However, the study has some limitations. The
first limitation is that, the study might not be accurate to be generalized to
other students with special needs as it only uses a small sample. The scope of
the study is limited. It only uses two software, even though there are many
software available to be tested in order to find the most effective one. Other than
that, the participants are chosen based on learning disabilities and mild mental
retardation. Students with other disabilities like the mute and blind students
are not included in the study. In addition, the distribution of period for each
phase is not equal. The Write:Outloud software was
used by the students for six weeks, while Co:Writer was only used for
three weeks (Write:Outloud was available to students in both Phase
Two and Phase Three). This causes the students to become more contented
and skillful with Write:Outloud than Co:Writer. The baseline
samples also were collected for only one week as opposed to three
weeks in the other two phases.
Future research on the use of writing software
for students with special needs has to have a wider scope and cover several
areas of studies. To get the comments of the students and the teachers about
the software being used can help in explaining the data that are collected. Researchers
should compare more computer software related to writing in terms of their
user-friendly use and benefits that the students will get from using the
software. The study should also focus on a larger sample so that the result of
the study would be more accurate and reliable. The study should not only focus
on the quantitative method but also the qualitative one.
